It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is why I hate socialists

page: 11
69
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

According to history, tribes have leaders. Traders were required to pay a tribute to trade. Even a pack of kids have a pecking order. Order and governing seem to be part of who we are as Homo sapiens.




posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Dudemo5

All right, Lady wont' give an answer, so I will ask you.

Do you think you have a right to take what I earn as you think you need it for yourself?


Since the lady is full of crickets for this answer I will take it.

I think for certain things user fees/taxes are necessary. One being for the common defense. Others are based upon a logical Democratic/Republic style law or regulation. That is the plan the Constitution lays out. I see the issue of voter fraud as the way the Social/Communism cult can steal the people's will and call it 'the people's will'. It is a reason for voter id laws and a good reason for paper ballots again.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Yes, the original plan was that for everything the government wanted to do, it was supposed to lay a clearly defined tax and/or duty to pay for that purpose specifically.

Then they persuaded people to pass the Income Tax Amendment. Now they can simply grab an amount they deem "enough" in a tortuous manner with all kinds of loopholes, exceptions, etc., to pay for all kinds of unspecified reasons ... like the recently discovered sexual harassment shush fund.

Imaging trying to sneak that in under the old system where every budget item would have to be its own bill with its own tax or duty added. Think the country as a whole would have gone for that one?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Fools
One has to wonder why it even matters to Sanders considering the un-payable debt the United States has - the debt he has been more than willing to support. The debt that he has never lifted a finger to do something about. It's amazing to me that they are unwilling to cut their programs to save OUR money as well.

I saw a leading Dem come out and freak out over the supposed 1 trillion it will raise in debt. Wasn't Obama era raising at least 2 trillion a year? But that was ok, that was just fine - in fact - it was a beautiful and glorius thing.


It is one trillion MORE debt than what was already expected. So instead of Obamas $2 trillion, it will be $3 trillion per year.


So if you listen to those same News Org's here who also told us it wouldn't work when Reagan did it, 'Trump can't win the ticket, Trump can't beat Hillary, then you will come away with this line also being the truth. It is the left "self-brainwashing" to get everyone saying the same BS.

Sure on paper there will be an initial trillion but it is going to be tens of trillions if we don't find a way to boost jobs and the economy.


edit on 3-12-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
BRAVO!! And yet i have seen pictures of him driving around in a $170,000.00 Audi R8. The Politburo always has more than the proletariat!! He is a do nothing never worked a day in his life POS.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think you are mistaken. Its capitlism that robs money. Why do you thin wealth disparity is greater than its ever been.

wake up jelly bean..


IT is about personal greed and we can take the greedy, corrupt ones down by law. As long as they don't own the FBI and avoid prosecution or Grand Jury review of available facts as they do now, it works.
edit on 3-12-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Justoneman

According to history, tribes have leaders. Traders were required to pay a tribute to trade. Even a pack of kids have a pecking order. Order and governing seem to be part of who we are as Homo sapiens.


Not everyone was willing to be in a tribe. Those were formed after Barter....



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
As much as "socialism" gets redefined, I think "greed" also gets redefined.

According to many of the leftists and Bernie, if you want to keep what you earn, you are greedy.

Being greedy now means fighting back when someone comes to take what you've worked for.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Look at these old morons raging against socialism yet your country has spent zillion of dollars on wars around the globe in the name of capitalism. Wars in which bankers and other filth have become wealthy yet you are raging against socialism? You could have the best health care in the world had you only spent 5% of what you spend on your filthy wars. But muh SOCIALISM AND MARXISM derp derp.
You half brains don't even know meaning of those words but you recall them because 50 years ago they told you socialism and Marxism was bad and you should hide under the desk if you see a commie. Cretins



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

SO the same government you rail against, the same government you complain about with wars, you want to give this same government more control, more authority over all our lives.

"Derp" indeed.




posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

All right, I will ask you.

Do you think you have the right to take what I earn as you think you need it?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

All right, I will ask you.

Do you think you have the right to take what I earn as you think you need it?


Every time your government bombs a funeral or a wedding thousands of miles away, than you sir pay for it. How many times have your government spent your money on wars you don't have any benefit of?, But when your money goes to helping your fellow Americans than you call it socialism and #ing go bat# over it. What's wrong with you?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have two words for you...paradise papers. And then there is the fault-capitalism.

You work and pay your fair share in taxes to repair the roads-you should get to work on a safe road and these schmuck CEO's who have Dickensian workshops and exploit the overseas lack of minimum wage laws while shifting their taxes offshore so they can enjoy their truffles drizzled with caviar.

Why should you bust your back for someone who's sole purpose is to find loopholes?


Amen!
edit on 12/3/2017 by angeldoll because: Colors are good.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

SO the same government you rail against, the same government you complain about with wars, you want to give this same government more control, more authority over all our lives.

"Derp" indeed.



When your government takes your money to fund banker wars than its perfectly fine, but when someone suggests that you spend some of that money on healthcare and infrastructure that your fellow Americans can benefit from you call it socialism and Marxism. Seriously?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

You didn't answer the question.

How do you reconcile giving government more control under socialism when you rail against the government fighting all these wars?



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

And he is exactly right it is plundering on a massive scale, he called them out on the floor, asked them if, they could promise not to touch Social Security, Medicare etc...they couldn't even say no, which means they will plunder that too.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
This is where the concept of socialism and by extension, Marxism fails.

People rail against our current government, with wars, funding the military, etc.

They want a government to be the cradle to grave caretakers of society.

But the only way to insure that that form of government continues is to have a dictatorship. Because any other form of government would be vulnerable to the whims of the voter base.


And that's what the Marxists and socialists are too afraid to admit.

If they get the government they want, it'll have to be a dictatorship.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

All right, then let's try it this way.

Under the old system where every budget item needed its own bill to pay for it with a clearly defined tax or duty to pay for it, do you think the country as whole would have gone for endless bombing runs in other countries?

It is one thing to provide for defense by building and maintaining an army, but how does using the army "build and maintain" it?

The answer is that it doesn't.

But please answer my original question. Also understand that under a socialist system, you still have wars because the government simply has more power and control. A perfectly socialist system requires a completely command economy under the guise of making everything "fair" for all which means you have absolutely no control instead of the limited control we now have.

So it gets much much easier to simply take money from you for whatever foreign ventures the motherland decides it must have.

Orwell's 1984 is as command economy as any other dystopia out there, and we are starting to see the people in power use it as a user manual rather than a cautionary tale.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
All I know is that if I was made President my first 100 days would be spent signing exit visas for the unamericans smart enough to know that it is time to get outta Dodge.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Unless you're rich, no one wants to take your money. We only want to take it from those who have oodles to spare.

And it has squat to do with "entitlement", the plain fact is there are things that need paying for, and the money has got to come from where the money exists.

Scarry socialists wanting to take money from the rich. Poor billionairs, they'll only have a thousand times the wealth of the average person.
Very sad.
edit on 3-12-2017 by Tearman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
69
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join